- address-policy-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 47, Issue 9
by Shahin Gharghi 11 Jul '15

11 Jul '15

Hi > I would be happy to support returning this proposal to the discussion phase, but only if there are compelling reasons to do so. To date nobody has made the case for taking that action. Although some have asked for this, nobody has put forward anything to justify these requests. The case has not been made yet. It?s up to you and your fellow travellers to make that case. > The problem is: The person who should justify the criticisms, never does! And he is supporting the proposal so that he will never return it to the discussion phase... -- Shahin Gharghi

3 3

2015-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
by Shahin Gharghi 11 Jul '15

11 Jul '15

Hi +1 to 2015-03 proposal. -- Shahin Gharghi

1 0

PA policy
by Kennedy, James 08 Jul '15

08 Jul '15

Hello, At the risk of sounding naïve, I have a question regarding the legitimate usage of PA address space. That is, what *type* of network or End User can it be assigned to. "LIRs are allocated Provider Aggregatable (PA) address space. They sub-allocate and assign this to *downstream networks*." https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-643#7 To me this reads networks or End Users assigned PA space must receive transit from the LIR holding the parent allocation. Or can the LIR assign PA blocks to customers/companies that don't receive transit, or any other technical network service for that matter, from the LIR? Regards, James

8 17

2015-02 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation)
by Marco Schmidt 07 Jul '15

07 Jul '15

Dear colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-02, "Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation" has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-02 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-02/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 7 July 2015. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

22 21

"ALLOCATED UNSPECIFIED"
by Enno Rey 02 Jul '15

02 Jul '15

Hi, some of you might already cringe just from this mail's subject ;-) I'm currently involved in handling some netblocks which are in "ALLOCATED UNSPECIFIED" state and this turns out to be surprisingly difficult, even in cases where both organizations (that is the LIR holding the covering aggregate and the organization which received the "more specific" PI assignment back in the 90s) apparently agree on a course of action. My impression is that these difficulties not least arise as seemingly no policy exists on "how to convert those assignments into 'ASSIGNED PI' or 'ALLOCATED PA' space". I'm aware that these netblocks might only be "remnant corner cases" totally irrelevant to the majority of the community. Which brings me to the following questions: a) do any of you "feel the same pain" when it comes to these blocks? b) do you think a policy proposal should be prepared how to handle those? I'm willing to prepare sth. c) what could such a proposal look like? What do those concerned think how a reasonable way of moving those blocks into a "stable state" can be identified/described. many thanks in advance for any type of feedback. everybody have a pleasant evening Enno -- Enno Rey ERNW GmbH - Carl-Bosch-Str. 4 - 69115 Heidelberg - www.ernw.de Tel. +49 6221 480390 - Fax 6221 419008 - Cell +49 173 6745902 Handelsregister Mannheim: HRB 337135 Geschaeftsfuehrer: Enno Rey ======================================================= Blog: www.insinuator.net || Conference: www.troopers.de Twitter: @Enno_Insinuator =======================================================

2 1

ARIN reaches depletion
by Nick Hilliard 01 Jul '15

01 Jul '15

https://www.arin.net/announcements/2015/20150701.html Nick

1 0

Opposing policy 2015-01
by Arash Naderpour 01 Jul '15

01 Jul '15

Hi, I oppose policy 2015-01 because it can affect LIRs which are not new but they recently have received their /22 from last /8. (For example an LIR which is registered in 2010 and just received its /22) the LIR is not established to just receive the /22 but it has to wait for 2 years to be able to transfer it and I don't see any reason for this limitation. As a side effect it makes it harder for IP distribution which is the main goal of RIPE. Regards, Arash Naderpour

6 6

We need IPv4 transfers
by Shahin Gharghi 01 Jul '15

01 Jul '15

Hi > You are just adding noise to the list. The messages show you are making noise. If you have any idea we can hear that. And I think you'd better play fair. You are using your power as a chair to get this proposal accepted. I asked a question and if you have an answer for that, tell me. People will be able to transfer their /22 after accepting this proposal. So this proposal won't help at all. What's your answer as a person who supports this proposal and of course as the chair? -- Shahin Gharghi

2 1

We need IPv4 transfers
by Shahin Gharghi 01 Jul '15

01 Jul '15

Dear Gert This question is for you and all of the members too. There is nothing private. -- Shahin Gharghi

2 1

We need IPv4 transfers
by Shahin Gharghi 01 Jul '15

01 Jul '15

Dear Garry So after accepting this policy people can transfer IP's without any additional cost like before. It means although you know this policy won't work you are supporting it? Why??! -- Shahin Gharghi

2 1